Civil society and street politics: contesting state legitimacy through demonstrations in emerging democracies

The article examines the theoretical and conceptual aspect of the models of interaction between civil and political society. The purpose of this article is to analyze the scientific studies of the political dimension of civil society and to identify models of interaction between civil and political society in the concepts of representatives of political science from nineteenth to twenty-first centuries. To analyze the political dimension of civil society have been used mainly works of S.Peregudov, Y. Zhilin, I. Kravchenko, A. Butenko, O. Mironov, I. Yarulin. The works of A. de Tocqueville, A. Gramsci, L. Althusser, J. Cohen and E. Arato have been used to distinguish contemporary models of interaction between civil society and political society. In the course of the conducted research it was established that for quite a long period of time civil society was treated as a special non-state sphere of public life, an alternative to the state system of government. However, a growing number of scholars are beginning to focus on the political phenomenon of civil society. From the nineteenth century more and more scholars are paying attention to the need for a separation of the concept of «political society» and models of its interaction with civil society. The theoretical and conceptual analysis of the interaction between civil society and political society makes it possible to distinguish several classifications of models of their interaction. Within the chronological aspect and cultural and historical traditions, French (A. de Tocqueville, L. Althusser), Italian (A. Gramsci) and American (J. Cohen and E. Arato) models of interaction between civil and political society are distinguished. In the quantitative aspect, we can distinguish between three-membered (A. Gramsci, A. de Tocqueville, L. Althusser) and five-membered (J. Cohen and E. Arato) interaction models. Finally, when we focusing on the coexistence criterion, a third classification of interaction models should be highlighted: – the model of interaction in which political society mediates between the state and civil society (J. Cohen and E. Arato); – the model of interaction in which political society actually identifies with the state (A. de Tocqueville, A. Gramsci, L. Althusser).

Previous articleNext article FreeReviewsCivil Society Contributions to Policy Innovation in the PR China, edited by Andreas Fulda. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. xv+311 pp. £75.00 (cloth).Xiaoyuan ShangXiaoyuan ShangUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThis book discusses the reach and significance of civil society building and development in China by way of several policy domains: environmental (part 1), social development (civil society activities involving labor, disabilities, and public services) (part 2) and, in part 3, the opportunities and challenges for European Union–China civil society collaboration and the impact of this on public policy making and implementation in China.The book is useful for readers who want to understand current state-society relations in China because, first, it examines these relations from a “state in society” perspective (9), trying to avoid the biases inherent in approaches that are “state centric” or “society centric.” In the current institutional arrangements, a policy innovation is more likely to be realized if a civil society organization cooperates with the government whenever feasible. From this perspective, some of the authors in this edited book raise the view that collaborative state-society relations are a necessary precondition for the extension of Chinese civil society. However, when a civil society organization does collaborate, it may have to sacrifice its autonomy.Second, the case studies included in the book demonstrate that the public policy innovations promoted by civil society organizations are important to the state. Because of the complicated governance challenges facing the state and civil society, new types of governance are sought after, and cooperation between the state and civil society becomes more important than before. One step in this direction is government procurement of public services from civil society organizations. A case study by Yang Tuan, Huang Haoming, and Andreas Fukda examines this new trend in governance at the local level. The practice of procuring such services is more commonly accepted by local governments in relatively richer areas in China and was recently endorsed by the central government. This is not only a new form of governance for the state but also a new participation channel for civil society organizations.As the book shows, there is an imbalance in the development of relations between the state and civil society in different policy domains. For example, the book’s three chapters on state–civil society relations in the domain of environmental policies show that more political space exists for environmental organizations to participate in policy innovation than in, say, industrial relations. The case study on labor NGOs suggests that independent labor NGOs have to deal with an unclear legal status, and heavily rely on foreign donations for their organizational survival. The evidence indicates that Chinese civil society may develop more easily in domains that are “nonpolitical” in nature, and where common agreements are easier to research. This has been true of environmental problems, which affect all social groups, and where considerable pressures to act can therefore be exerted on the state.A reader gets the impression that the autonomic development of civil society is still a question in China, and that civil society organizations have a long way to go to earn an independent existence. This is not a question raised by the book. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The China Journal Volume 77January 2017 Published on behalf of the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/689232 For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Contents: Preface. H-D. Meyer, W.L. Boyd, Civil Society, Pluralism, and Education--Introduction and Overview. H-D. Meyer, Civil Society and Education--The Return of an Idea. K.A. Strike, Civil Society and Schooling: Particularistic Voices and Public Space. I. Richter, The Idea of an Education Mix: A Proposal to Strengthen Civil Society and Education in Germany. A. Dijkstra, J. Dronkers, Church, State, and Civil Society: The Netherlands' System of Schooling. G. Walford, The State and the Civil Society in Education in England: Past Developments and Current Problems. J. Herbst, Schools Between State and Civil Society in Germany and the United States: A Historical Perspective. H-D. Meyer, Educational Autonomy in a Civil Society: A Model of Checks and Balances. B.S. Cooper, E.V. Randall, Vouchers: Still (Largely) Untested and Why. M. Weiss, Education and the Third Sector: A Critical View. D.J. Brown, School Voluntarism, Social Capital, and Civil Society. W.L. Boyd, Balancing the State, Markets, and Civil Society in Education Reform: Trends and Issues in England and the United States. K. Mundy, L. Murphy, Beyond the Nation-State: Educational Contention in Global Civil Society.

Relevance of the research topic. The urgency of the problem is determined by the need to create socio-cultural conditions for free views exchange as a condition for social dialogue between the state and civil society, which is currently not fully provided in Ukraine. The public opinion functioning in the Ukrainian society is complicated by social life factors that are manifested in the public consciousness of individuals. Increasing the level of mass media intensity, strengthening the influence of corporate and group opinion, as well as transnational corporations’ positions, on the state with the latter ignoring the individual interests, emphasizes the need to harmonize the public opinion functioning in Ukraine. The purpose of the study is define the determinants of optimizing the relationship between the state and civil society as a way to harmonize the functioning of public opinion. The objectives of the study are: 1) to determine the role of the relationship between the state and civil society in the functioning of public opinion 2) to determine the main features of the public opinion functioning in Ukrainian society 3) to form the main factors of optimizing the relationship between the state and civil society as a way to harmonize the functioning of public opinion in Ukraine. The result of the study confirm that in Ukraine a violation of the process of formation and functioning of public opinion as a manifestation of the disharmony of the relationship between the state and civil society. To reduce tension and establish a model of the relationship between the state and civil society, conceptual directions are identified. They focus on the principles of reciprocity and dialogue, humanism, historicism and succession, publicity and transparency, legality and democracy, systematicity and complexity, correspondence between theory and Ukrainian realities, objectivity and validity. The development of relations between the state and civil society is possible on condition of introducing knowledge about the state-institutional and civic-self-organizational determinants of its optimization in Ukraine.

This paper examines the views on the relationship between the state and civil society in three analytic frameworks on social movements responding to globalization : antisystemic movement theory, network society theory, and the East Asian civil society argument. Through this examination, it searches for a paradigmatic change in the civil society argument. The purpose of the change is to make the civil society argument deep-rooted in the East Asian soil on which we live, meeting the demands of our times of globalization.Antisystemic movement theory follows orthodox assumptions that there is a clear distinction between the state and civil society, and that they can confront each other. Recently, these assumptions have been less emphasized because of the strategic calculation on the political use of anti-globalization movements. Network society theory analyses social movements without considering the relationship between the state and civil society, because it maintains that global networks will make the role of the state and civil society less important. In short, the state and civil society are presupposed to confront each other, or are not considered central to these main analytic frameworks on anti-globalization movements. On the other hand, the East Asian civil society argument, which has been less noticed in relation to social movements responding to globalization, regards the state and civil society as interconnected.In actual anti-globalization movements, we can hear some voices to be resonant with the viewpoints of the East Asian civil society argument. The East Asian civil society argument will continue to address the theoretical and practical issues in building a transnational network responding to globalization in this region, bearing a geographical specificity and internal diversity as its own destiny.

This study examines the sociological foundations of regime stability in contemporary Russia by analysing how social consent is produced and sustained in the absence of democratic institutions. Building on existing scholarship that rejects the teleological assumptions of the post–Cold War transition paradigm, the research conceptualises Russia not as a failed democracy in transition but as a stabilised authoritarian order in which compliance has been normalised. The literature demonstrates that regime durability in Russia is rooted in an ideologically mediated relationship between the state and society rather than in electoral legitimacy or participatory governance. The study draws particular attention to the ideological framework of "sovereign democracy," which redefines political legitimacy as loyalty to state sovereignty and national survival rather than popular consent. Within this framework, democratic institutions function as symbolic façades, while dissent is reframed as moral betrayal or foreign interference. The research further highlights how this ideological construction is reinforced through legal repression, social atomization, and the restructuring of civil society into state-aligned and marginalised spheres. Rather than eliminating civic participation, the regime channels social engagement into controlled and depoliticised forms, producing what the literature describes as consentful contention—localized claims-making that affirms, rather than challenges, state authority. The analysis also emphasizes the role of historical legacies and moral narratives in shaping societal responses to authoritarian governance. Experiences of the turbulent 1990s, combined with enduring ambivalence toward Western political models, have contributed to widespread acceptance of a strong, centralized state. Economic hardship and political exclusion are often morally justified through narratives of sacrifice, stability, and civilizational endurance, further limiting the potential for collective mobilization. By synthesizing research on ideology, civil society, repression, and contentious politics, this study argues that social consent in Russia is best understood as a form of adaptive compliance rather than democratic legitimacy. The findings contribute to broader sociological debates on authoritarian resilience by demonstrating how regimes can maintain stability through the management of consent, participation, and meaning, even in the absence of democratic accountability.

The article is devoted to the issue of the political, legal and historical dimensions of the provision of international technical assistance by civil society. At the same time, since international technical assistance will become an important element of the post-war revival of Ukraine, the subject of which will be the world civil society, then, in these conditions, the issue of studying the role of civil society in this area becomes extremely relevant. Thus, the purpose of this article is to study the political, legal and historical dimensions of the functioning of civil society as a subject of providing international technical assistance. The article substantiates that the allocation of five basic models of interaction between the state and civil society becomes most successful when we consider the state and civil society as categorical phenomena. It is found out that, historically, Ukraine has tested all five models on its territory: anarchic, liberal, authoritarian, totalitarian and democratic. It is proved that historically, the first model of interaction between the state and civil society that existed in our country was anarchic. It is noted that both the Cossacks, the Chumaks, and the Kobzars were formed outside the influence of the states that existed at that time, where the Ukrainian lands were located. The article concludes that the difference between the famine of 1921-1923 and the Holodomor of 1932-1933 lies precisely in the attitude of Soviet and world civil society to these events. It is emphasized that in the conditions of a democratic model of interaction between the state and civil society, the latter is actively involved in the aforementioned processes at its own discretion, although not without the assistance of the state. It is found that the most powerful manifestation of the provision of international technical assistance by civil society in Ukraine was the emergence of the UNITED24 fundraising platform. The practical value of the work lies in the need to create legal foundations for the functioning of civil society as a subject of assistance, including that of an international and technical nature.

Along the Academe‐Policy Frontier: A Tribute to Aileen S.P. Baviera

'Civil society', 'the market' and 'democracy' are the conceptual 'good guys' that dominate current Western thinking about China's present and future in the social, economic and political realms respectively. Though these ideas are often used in imprecise and tendentious ways, they have considerable analytical and practical power; they reflect real processes and point toward real solutions. This paper sets out to examine how useful the notion of 'civil society' is in describing and explaining social change in contemporary Chinese society. I shall proceed, flrst, by clarifying the specific way in which I intend to use the term 'civil society' and, second, by investigating the empirical utility of the idea through a case-study of one Chinese city.

The state, civil society and the shadow state: Analysing three vectors of relationality

The article clarifies the forms of interaction between the state and civil society, its constitutional and legal characteristics, the role of public control in the interaction between the state and civil society, as well as the role of public control in the implementation of judicial reform and reform of law enforcement agencies. It was concluded that a modern legal state in crisis conditions must strictly adhere to constitutional principles, exercise effective control over compliance with the legitimate purpose of measures restricting human rights and freedoms, and also exercise effective communication with civil society. Thus, under any conditions, it is necessary to strive for the establishment of democracy and balance of interests following the best traditions of European constitutionalism. We single out such forms of interaction between the state and civil society as: 1) Public control by civil society institutions over the activities of public authorities as one of the forms; 2) Involvement of civil society institutions in the implementation of legal reform and formation of public authorities; 3) Delegation of certain functions by the state to institutions of civil society; 4) State funding of civil society institutions. This list is certainly not exhaustive. Various forms of interaction between civil society institutions and the state can and do exist. It is concluded that the reception of European legal experience is of great importance for the optimization of human rights guarantees and effective interaction of the state and institutions in civil society. Its components are the harmonization of national legislation and bringing it into line with international standards, transnational participation in the work of international organizations, which is provided for in Article 18 of the Basic Law, cooperation between the state and public institutions through the application of European democratic governance models. Implementation of the above in practice will allow us to effectively face today’s challenges. Effective guarantees of the existence of a sovereign constitutional state, which reduce the risk of the negative impact of a crisis situation, can be created only by ensuring the comprehensive cooperation of state institutions and civil society.

How much can civil society participation actually contribute to the EU's democratic legitimation? This article examines this question in order to assess whether the current debate possesses the potential to cure the EU's alleged ‘democratic deficit’. It rests on the assumption that democratic legitimation through civil society requires the participation of civil society to meet democratic standards themselves. The analysis treats a normative and an empirical aspect of the subject. Firstly, it focuses on the European Commission's White Paper on European Governance, and examines its requirements for civil society participation in the light of the concepts of associative and deliberative democracy. However, requirements for democratic civil society participation can also be developed by civil society itself. Therefore, secondly, the potential of the community of European interest representatives for the creation of a European civil society will be assessed, on the basis of original empirical data.

Since the 1990s, there has been a growing consensus in the international development community about the role of civil society as a relevant partner in economic development and political change all over the world. This article places this debate in the context of state-society relations in Sub-Sahara-Africa. As will become clear, the international consensus is based on one specific and highly normative interpretation of this relation between state and civil society. This consensus defines civil society as an independent actor vis-à-vis the state, capable of championing democratic and governance reforms. Our own argument starts from the assumption that this interpretation ignores the complex interrelatedness of state and civil society in African societies. As such, we propose a theoretical framework that recognizes a plurality of different state-society relations and also pays attention to informal as well as formal relations between state and civil society. By doing so, we question the international consensus about the role civil society can play in Sub-Sahara-Africa.Key Words: Civil Society, State-Society Relations, Sub-Sahara-Africa

Civil Society in Africa: A 'new' partner in an 'old' system? Since the 1990s, there has been a growing consensus in the international development community about the role of civil society as a relevant partner in economic development and political change all over the world. This article places this debate in the context of state-society relations in Sub-Sahara-Africa. As will become clear, the international consensus is based on one specific and highly normative interpretation of this relation between state and civil society. This consensus defines civil society as an independent actor vis-à-vis the state, capable of championing democratic and governance reforms. Our own argument starts from the assumption that this interpretation ignores the complex interrelatedness of state and civil society in African societies. As such, we propose a theoretical framework that recognizes a plurality of different state-society relations and also pays attention to informal as well as formal relations between state and civil society. By doing so, we question the international consensus about the role civil society can play in Sub-Sahara-Africa.

A few apocalyptic predictions of a post‐communist ‘maelstrom’ notwithstanding,1 the break‐up of the USSR was initially greeted by optimistic assessments of the prospects for democracy in the ‘new R...